The High Court allowed the early listing and finally heard the writ petition. Relying on a prior order, the Court quashed specific demand orders and related proceedings against the miner, permitting authorities to reassess facts and law.
Demand orders dated 28.08.2021 and 15.11.2021 and all proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed and set aside.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
(1 of 3)
[2023/RJJD/012995]
[CW-2738/2022]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2738/2022
Dinesh Singh S/o Surat Singh, Aged About 59 Years, R/o Village Tehla, Tehsil Riyanbadi, District Nagaur (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. BS Sandhu For Respondent(s) : Mr. Digvijay Singh Jasol, AGC
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
02/05/2023
(2 of 3)
[2023/RJJD/012995]
[CW-2738/2022]
case of Sita Ram Vs. Sate of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil
Writ Petition No.14466/2021) and other connected matters. The order dated 17.01.2023 reads as under:
“1. The controversy in the batch of connected petitions is similar and for the purpose of adjudication of the said matters, the first petition, being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14466/2021, is taken as the lead case.
2. Brief facts as placed before this Court are that in the year 2014, the petitioner submitted an application under the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 for the allotment of a mining lease, on his Khatedari land situated near Village Rohisa, Tehsil Riyanbadi, District Nagaur, for the excavation of mineral bajri. And that, after the compliance of the necessary formalities, the mining lease was granted in favour of the petitioner-Sita Ram.
3. The first petition assails the impugned demand order, dated 02.09.2021, at Annex-14, issued by the respondent no.3-Asst. Mining Engineer, Gotan, District Nagaur, and prays that the respondent-authorities be directed to not take any coercive action against the petitioners and in case any recovery/order is made pursuant to the said demand order, then the same may be accordingly quashed and set aside.
4. Mr Hemant Ballani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the impugned demand orders are not sustainable, as the factual foundation for the same, being that the density of the mineral bajri was erroneously calculated by the respondent-authorities, and that therefore, it was incorrectly found that the petitioner was allegedly carried out illegal excavation and mining activities.
5. Mr. Digvijay Singh Jasol, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-authorities fairly submits that the density of the mineral bajri was considered at 2.25 while calculating the penalty for illegal excavation and notices were issued to the mining lease holders accordingly by the respondent no.3-Asst. mining Engineer, Gotan, District Nagaur. However, the Bajri Lease Association, Riyan Bari submitted a representation for examination of density as per report of NABL certified laboratory, according to which, density of mineral bajri was shown at an average of 1.6.
6. After arguing the matter for some time, learned counsel for both the parties have jointly made a request for quashing of the impugned demand orders, so that the respondent-authorities can reassess and re-examine the amount of penalty to be levied, if any, against the
(3 of 3)
[2023/RJJD/012995]
[CW-2738/2022]
petitioners, after examining the complete facts and laws applicable to the instant petitions.
7. In light of such joint submission made on behalf of the parties, this Court deems it just and proper to quash the impugned demand orders, dated 02.09.2021, 11.11.2019 and 30.09.2020 respectively, and all the proceedings emanating thereof. The concerned respondent-authorities are at liberty to re- examine and reassess the complete facts and the laws applicable to the instant cases and pass appropriate orders, if required, in accordance with law.
8. Therefore, the batch of connected petitions stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to cost.”
(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
123-Sudheer/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition should be disposed of in accordance with a prior order covering similar controversy.
Whether the demand orders and proceedings issued against the petitioner should be quashed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sita Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.Relied on¶24
Sita Ram Vs. Sate of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14466/2021)
DINESH SINGH
STATE OF RAJASTHAN
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
